User talk:Bagumba/Archive 4

Ok I didn't totally understand what you were saying on the otherpage, what am I missing and the temp/static IPs? I need someone to connect the dots. Is it worth the time on the template for a discussion? I am a person who takes things literally most times so when I see a policy page that says not allowed I say ok, fairly black and white thing. So if it's a rule that's not a rule I believe in starting discussions to change said guideline. Also I'm not interesting in rehashing it here on your page just from the technical side for future reference or possibly the other discussion.

I've started a thread at Template_talk:Shared_IP#Static_IPs.—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ty appreciate it.

talk

) 08:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bagumba. I noticed your block of 99.129.112.89. I am concerned that you may have erred in placing that block. The above notice suggests that you may be involved and I hold a similar opinion. Please consider reversing your action or at minimum ask at wp:an if there is consensus support for the action you took. Thank you for considering this request. Cheers. My76Strat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concern here. I haven't been negatively involved with the user in a way where I believe a COI would exist. Feel free to inquire at the appropriate forum if you still believe the block was inappropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. My inquiry culminates here with the comments in this thread. If you are satisfied, I am content. Thank you again. My76Strat (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

NP.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

	Good as gold!
	Hi Bagumba. I see that you are not around very much right now, so this can be a nice surprise for you when you pop in. I am here to present you with the AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

thx. Good to see you around still.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Proposal to migrate men's college basketball players and coaches to Template:Infobox basketball biography. Please weigh in and help achieve consensus on this matter. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't know the exact protocol for changing text however I wish you would not have restored it as what was written was an updated version of Sean Pamphilon's bio. Some of the info that is/was there is incorrect and or undesirable. Please advise because I will change it again. Sean is my business partner and life partner and I manage his career.

Thanks, Tenny Priebe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennypriebe (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this here. I left some standard links on your personal talk page that may be helpful given your relationship with the subject. In general, we strive to be neutral and base edits on reliable sources that have been published. Incorrect information can be corrected if a better source is cited. "Undesirable" text, such as conflicting opinions, are sometimes suitable for neutrality. However, care is taken in such cases to be clear to differentiate an opinion versus a fact. Let me know if you have further questions, or feel free to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, could you please consider blocking IP user 207.165.127.2 as he has been vandalising Danny Granger repeatedly. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he's seemed to have stopped now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Be better to give a final warning before resorting to blocks. At any rate, hopefully it's over. BTW, I'm sporadically on these days, so considerer trying

WP:AIV for likely faster turnaround.—Bagumba (talk

) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. Just thought I'd let you know. With Zagalejo inactive now, you're the only other basketball-related admin I know of. But thanks for that, I'll use that in the future. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi - wanted to see if you'd be willing to add him to the 1 or 2 "featured" recent deaths on the front page (as I write Anthony Caro is listed). Only admins can edit the page. Seems like a HOF player and coach would qualify, though sometimes I think there is a bias against athletes in this space. Hope your trip is going well. Rikster2 (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't around for this.—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on Jeremy Tyler's birth date. I have found three conflicting dates: June 2, 1991 [2]; June 12, 1991 [3] [4]; and June 21, 1991 [5]. I'm not sure which one is correct, and it's sort of a similar situation to Francisco García – which was discussed at NBA wikiproject but never resolved. What do you think? DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

NBA.com[6] and basketball-reference.com[7] also list June 21.

MOS:DOB shows that birthdates are OK to be approximate (better then being wrong). Consider adding explanatory notes like in Steve Novak to make it crystal clear when there is ambiguity.—Bagumba (talk

) 12:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for that Bagumba. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He isn't listed on the "players who've played for both the Clippers and Lakers" in the

Thanks for discussing this. Sources dont indicate that a rivalry existed between the Braves and Lakers. While technically the Clippers and Braves are the same franchise, it seems trivial to bring up Buffalo players when there was no rivalry before they became the Clippers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of

Bagumba- The discussion about date ranges at MOS appears to be going nowhere again. I think it would be best if we could reach some sort of closure on this. I respect your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and process and am interested in your advice on how to "get there." Would an RfC be the way to go? My concern is that without changes in MOS wording one way or the other this issue will crop up every few months and I worry that the MOS Talk page discussions will usually deadlock because the claim is that we sports guys dig in too hard on the way we do things, and my counter to that would be that the MOS guys have a pretty vested interest in NOT making significant changes to MOS. I think some sort of impartial facilitator or wider discussion would be in order but I am not sure how to proceed. I think it is odd that MOS would outright forbid a date format that exists all over the "real world." As you know, it is also used on 1000s of sports articles, as well as political articles, etc. But honestly, I'd settle for clarity so that I can just focus on writing and editing articles. Any advice? Rikster2 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While there isn't closure yet on the issue, I do think there has been progress in understanding the arguments on all sides. RfC is an option, but care must be taken to reach a solution that best addressed all concerns. Otherwise, no consensus could be the continued outcome; the current discussion is not lacking in participants, which is the motivating factor for many RfCs. Some random points:

1. Even with no changes, the current sports infobox standard can be justified by
   WP:OTHERDATE
   . This is not ideal, but it at least balances arguments alleging that the MOS is not being followed.
2. It should be stressed that
   WP:PROPOSAL
   says guidelines should reflect existing practices used in articles. Clearly the 4 digit format is consistently used in a wide set of articles. Mandating 2 digits is ignoring existing acceptance of 4-digit format. You would think they can coexist. Afterall, nobody is forcing conformity let's say of American English over British English. Guidelines need to reflect practices, not dictate them.
3. For non-sports editors, any proposal should provide extensive examples from reliable sources showing the 2 digit format. Also, links to bio categories like Category:National_Basketball_Association_players_by_club and similar cats in other sports would help editors see for themselves how widespread the practice is.
4. Linking to FAs like Thierry Henry, Wayne Gretzky, Tim Duncan, Mariano Rivera, and Jim Thorpe might also be persuasive. Even non-sports articles like Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama in their TOC headings use a 4-digit format for year ranges.
5. Emphasize my earlier point about Princeton Style Guide advising that ranges used as adjectives should be 2 digits, e.g 2013–14 season, while year ranges should use "to" and 4 digits. For infobox, a dash would be shorthand for "to"
6. In addition to RFCs, if an individual editor continually makes changes without gaining consensus, it is essentially a
   WP:TBAN
   if all else fails.

If you do pursue an RFC, it might be helpful to first get some level of agreement with others on the current problem, and proposed options and rationales. Too much discussion on even the basic problem statement could lead to newcomers to say

Well, that NYT one doesn't actually quote what you quoted in your revision. So I copied that quote into Google and the same article came up, but for SMH. The Sydney one actually quoted it. Now, I might just be stupid when it comes to the NYT one, but I word searched it as well (command-F on Mac) and "enjoys living in Los Angeles.. " did not come up. Anyway, a happy new year to you as well, Bagumba. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Bagumba: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year 2014 }} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Feels like from the discussion you started a basketball league list would be worthwhile. I really don't see why basketball should have a significantly higher bar for notability than hockey, cricket, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem with a list, my issue is the criteria used to form the list. I'm admittedly not that knowledgeable about overseas leagues, hence I'm asking for objective criteria. The list of sources that Im asking for would also help other editors expand/create articles. If there was consensus that I'm asking to prove the sky is blue, and the leagues are obvious, my opinion wouldn't matter.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

So, what's the criteria? I've mostly asked for a notability standard south of what hockey/football have (adding just a couple of leagues to "one game notability" then another longer set that assumes notability for award winners - with a defined list of league awards) I'd rather get your suggestions for objective criteria up front rather than play hide and seek with it like last time. Rikster2 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I had thrown a suggestion before at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Basketball_notability_guidelines. I can clarify if you had specific questions.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This deal is now announced at least on the Cavs site http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/deng-trade-140107 Rikster2 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How should I handle a situation where a set of very similar IPs are reverting very similar edits (against WP:OVERLINK, WP:USPLACE, WP:MOSLEAD, etc.)? I don't want to get into an edit war, but I am pretty sure it's the same person on different devices and I suspect it is a user banned for sock puppetry. Relevant articles are Julius Hodge and Larry Abney (plus others from the banned user). Thanks for the help. Rikster2 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I semi protected Hodge for a week because it had past confirmed sock editor. You can start a sock investigation, but its gonna be hard if they keep hopping IPs. Otherwise, you are left with talk page discussions and reporting edit warring where applicable. You can also notify projects of specific pages to get others help.—Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error on the K A-J article. I missed the fact that this was in the lede and not further down in the article. As ever your vigilance is much appreciated. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No prob.—Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Accusations and investigation

The introduction to the article says, "Anthony Bosch...Dr. Pedro Bosch...Ashley Bosch". Thus listing three people named Bosch involved with Biogenesis.

In the section Accusations and investigation, the third paragraph has "In April, Bosch received a complaint from the Florida Department of Health for practicing medicine without a license." I found this sentence completely ambiguous. From other investigations I know the investigators put pressure on everyone hoping to crack one and get them talking. So I did not know if the third paragraph meant Anthony or Ashley.

Am I supposed to assume this Bosch is Anthony simply because he was named in the previous paragraph? Your comment says "yes". But that requires the reader to know the standard Wikipedia style and to believe that it is correctly being followed here.

Is that really the standard Wikipedia style? If it is, I am sorry to hear that. I cannot believe I am the only reader to whom this would cause confusion. It sounds presumptuous of Wikipedia. Why not just allow the specific naming of the person in cases such as this where there is plenty of room for ambiguity and confusion.

Respectfully yours, Nick Beeson (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. See my response at your duplicate thread at

Talk:Biogenesis_baseball_scandal#Accusations_and_investigation.—Bagumba (talk

) 23:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I see you moved

Rather than undo your move directly, I wanted to contact you first. Please let me know if you know of similar circumstances where a singular is used for an article about multiple instances, if you want to undo the move and start requested-move discussion, or how you'd like to proceed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I was editing

WP:PLURAL and made the move. I didn't read the whole American football positions article, but the fact that "position" was bolded in the lead already made me think this was non-controversial. Not something that I want to spend that much time on, the difference is IMO minuscule, so feel free to do what you see fit, and let consensus reign.—Bagumba (talk

) 21:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So I will continue to remove these as I see them. They aren't necessary. Rikster2 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

USPLACE seems to be an article naming convention, not necessarily how cities are referenced. That being said, whereas most article bodies would follow USPLACE and refer to

Los Angeles, California. Again, I'll save it for a non-American who might care more, but I'd assume they wouldnt recognize most US states to know that USPLACE implies it is a US city e.g. Akron, Ohio is the same as Akron, Ohio, US—Bagumba (talk

) 03:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what links are for. There are many small countries one might not be familiar with too. He's listed as American and his place of birth is Akron, Ohio. I don't see it as necessary nor required. Rikster2 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Originally, I was thinking of just moving "Nationality" before "Born" in the infobox display, then it'd be obvious if the country wasn't listed, it is consistent with their nationality. However, if you look at {{Infobox person}}, it says for birthplace to include "city, administrative region, sovereign state", and nationality "Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace." Another basketball inconsistency: AFAIK, none of the other athlete info boxes for major sports even lists a nationality field.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do basketball infoboxes need to be consistent with other sports? Those sports didn't see a need to collaborate. Hockey has a "national team" field with a flag, btw. And what was the collaborative process used to come up with the parameter definitions for infobox person? Rikster2 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's easy enough, I'd rather be consistent. In this case, I'd prefer Infobox person format, as it would appear to have wider consensus across multiple subject areas. Not sure what the process was, but if people follow it, that's the strongest type of consensus. Anyways, if you prefer to revert the occasional "US" addition, I'll let it be.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ok, why don't you just switch 'em all to infobox person then? I'll step out of the way and let it happen. I've been looking for hobbies to give up anyway, so this is as good a time as any. The politics and ridiculous rules and policies around here are easily the worst part about Wikipedia - yet many seem to engage only in this part of the project. I'm about over it so whatever you want to do, be my guest and I'll just take it as a sign. Rikster2 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I must not have been clear on my intention. I was thinking to save you work from reverts by offering a different perspective to let the "US" additions be, but I wasn't aware of the USPLACE perspective. I have no interest in me personally spending time doing massive conversions on infoboxes, nor was I suggesting that you take it on either. We generally agree on things here, and I respect your work, which is why I even brought this up. Anyways, like I said from the start, didn't want to get into a big discussion on this, so sorry this dragged on.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba,

The only Ray McCallum, Jr. that there is (at least in basketball) is the head coach of the Detroit Titans, whose full name is actually Howard Raymond McCallum, Jr. ... His son who played for him at Detroit and is now a player for the Sacramento Kings (played eight minutes last night) is named Raymond Michael McCallum ... Both go by the same name Ray McCallum (no Sr. or Jr.) ... If Wikipedia ever wants to have the correct information then it needs to make these corrections ... Wikipedia should pay more attention to REAL bio information on School and Professional team sites like ^[1] and ^[2] both use Ray McCallum ... instead of stories written by journalist who just added Jr. and Sr. to separate the two ... everyone who has used Ray McCallum, Jr. for the younger of the two over the last four plus years has been completely wrong ... again both father and son go by the same name Ray McCallum. —Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIDNation (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia needs to be

reliable sources that support your proposed changes are generally expected. Are you are affiliated with the McCallums in any way?—Bagumba (talk

) 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It feels a little like you might have just blocked this editor for a content dispute you're involved in. He thinks no ^{[citation needed]} is needed, you think it's needed; there might be an incipient edit war there between the two of you, but it's hard to see how it warrants a block, and it's hard to see how if it does warrant one, you should have been the one to do it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. It seemed at the time to me to be the "straightforward" example of

WP:BLUE did not seem to apply here. I certainly wouldn't have blocked if I had removed the unsourced text instead of merely tagging it, in which case it would have been a clear content dispute. Do what you think best for WP.—Bagumba (talk

) 05:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Try 2 wks for now.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In speaking with User:Frietjes, it sounds like there might be an issue with adding college colors to infobox:basketball biography. I think our best bet might be to create "infobox:college basketball biography" and have it mirror 90% of the functions of basketball biography, but with allowances for academic class and school colors. This way, consistency would be there and conversions would be very easy (remove "college" from the infobox name and adjust fields). We could also accommodate college coach and administration info so that the same box can be used throughout a person's career. Take a look at the Talk page for WP:college basketball if you want to refresh your memory on the discussion. My question is - do you know of someone with the skills to build this infobox? I'd been trying to get Frietjes to help, but I get the sense she has a lot going on. Rikster2 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've hacked my way through some edits, but it's usually cut/paste or some crude implementation. That being said, its not something I can sign up for timewise now, and the color code always looked complicated to me. Freitjes was my usual go to also, but nothing happened with my last query to fix {{basketballstats}} for those nba.com stat links changes. So not surprised if she's swamped. Try looking at edit history of other templates for possible candidates, or there's also Wikipedia:Requested templates.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I used that text because I've seen it on a bunch of basketball player pages. Example: Karl Malone. You can't retire from being an American, so I don't think anyone would read it that way. Retired means from his career. Enigma^msg 17:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

FA's like Michael Jordan and Juwan Howard put "former/retired" after American. At any rate, there isn't much consensus either way. Do as you will.—Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Also, you accidentally used rollback on me, reverting previous edits I had made. Enigma^msg 20:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for understanding.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, no hard feelings about developments there. As I see it, you still misunderstand just how measurement-system conventions work. I was trying to clear it up for you. Perhaps you thought you got it, and just saw my attempts as a repetition. I still see the way they actually work as being the only way out - the only way that has actual reasons rather than opinions - hence "irrational" for lack of reasons. And maybe you're seeing something I don't. If so, I hope it works, and wish you well. Evensteven (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You've been inadvertently hit by the crossfire. The proof by assertion reference was for the editor who has repeated their argument verbatim for the Nth time, where N is probably like > 5 if not > 10. You listen and rephrase your points, and the sincerity in your arguments is felt, whether or not we agree on everything. Happy editing.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I probably did misread. And agreeing isn't really that important, especially initially. That's the whole reason we need discussions. More important is remaining on good terms whether agreement is ever found or not. Evensteven (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

		The WikiProject NFL Award
		I, Mati, hereby award Bagumba the WikiProject NFL Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject NFL . Awarded 03:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Bagumba. What about The Sporting News awards? Those are voted on by the players themselves. -

Hasn't been brought up before. I think we'd be better to limit it to NBA official awards, not just because its the NBA, but they get the most press too. Body is fine for the rest. Just my opinion. You can start a thread at

WT:NBA if you want to get others' input.—Bagumba (talk

) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, this may well need to go back to ANI for a topic ban. I think it is worth raising there but please let me know what you decide either way. GiantSnowman 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I think its best to just get the RFC closed. Things will be clearer when that is out of the way.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, good suggestion. GiantSnowman 12:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that semi-protection until after the edit might be a good idea. You?